Leon Kopel, Petitioner v. Bernardo Kopel, Respondents — Canady, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Canady dissented from the majority's conclusion that the amended complaint's new claim related back to the original pleading. He would have upheld the determination that the claim was time-barred because it rested on a distinct factual narrative involving an alleged agreement to purchase business interests, rather than the loan and investor-related allegations originally pleaded. He would have discharged the case. Justice Polston concurred.